The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Ltd and Others

Case Summary

The claim against the fourth respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal considered the jurisdiction regarding the fifth respondent, but ultimately dismissed the claim.

The claim against the fourth respondent was dismissed following its withdrawal by the claimant. The claim against the fifth respondent was dismissed after the tribunal considered and rejected its jurisdiction to hear it.

• •jurisdiction on time in respect of the fourth respondent
• •jurisdiction relating to time in respect of the fifth respondent

10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 March 2017 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr A Handa Respondent: The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Ltd and Others Heard at Newcastle by Cloud Video Platform By: Cloud Video Platform (CVP) On: 21 October 2024 Before: Employment Judge Martin Representation Claimant: Mr D Bayne (Counsel) Respondents 1-3 and 6: Mr S Parnell (Counsel) Respondent 4: Miss A Harle (Counsel) Respondent 5: Mr W Wayne (Solicitor) Reserved Judgement on Public Preliminary Hearing 1. The claimant’s complaint against the fourth respondent is dismissed upon withdrawal. 2. This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaint against the fifth respondent which is hereby dismissed. REASONS Preamble 1. This case came before me for a public preliminary hearing to consider jurisdiction on time in respect of the fourth respondent. However, following further correspondence, it appears that the hearing (albeit not the Order) extended this hearing to consider the question of jurisdiction relating to time in respect of the fifth respondent. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the claimant confirmed they were not proceeding with the claim against the fourth respondent and that 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 March 2017 2 the claim against the fourth respondent could therefore be dismissed upon withdrawal. 2. The Tribunal then went on to consider the position regarding the fifth respondent. The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and Mr Wayne of the fifth respondent. The Tribunal was also provided with a large bundle of documents from which the Tribunal tried to identify the relevant documents to which the parties would be referring. The Tribunal was also subsequently provided with email correspondence between the claimant and his legal advisor between 26 …